5 ms·
But what information was accessible to them to change their mind? They wouldn't have seen headlines like this unless their local newspaper chose to run the arti
by marpstar 6y ago
But what information was accessible to them to change their mind? They wouldn't have seen headlines like this unless their local newspaper chose to run the article. They wouldn't have been able to go searching for this information without going to a library.
I'm not defending their stance, but I think it's easy to forget that we have a lot more information thrown at us in a given day than they probably had in a decade.
- standardUser 6y agoTrue, but we are not talking about 100% of the over 60 crowd. We're talking about maybe 65% give or take. There were opportunities for people to expand their perspectives. Many took those opportunities, most did not, and as the evidence mounted over the decades, the rate at which those generations shifted their opinions was embarrassingly slow (and came at a tremendous cost of human suffering, while conferring them no benefit).
- foxtr0t 6y agoThere was a lot of scientific information about psychedelics from the 50s and 60s. Illegalization and stigmatization of psychedelics was largely political and antagonistic towards the scientific community that was doing actual research. Also anyone curious enough to try out psychedelics will realize they're very different from narcotics. In the US there was always a subculture that accepted use of psychedelics, information passing through books, writings, unofficial journals etc. So to say the information wasn't accessible just isn't true. It may have been hidden, but if it was it was in plain sight and to anyone curious this world was easily accessible and accepting.